During the biggest crisis of capitalism of our generation, why is the UK anarcho-left not growing?

[Bernie Gunther]

I can accept that you could list a whole lot of stuff that represents a growing authoritarianism, but very little of it actually affects the daily lives of most people (as opposed to the niggling low-level offial finger wagging about personal behaviour that quite clearly does).

For most people, they can't influence the behaviour of the government in any meaningful way, whereas people who can afford to hire lobbyists have plenty of influence.

If you try to find a way to influence the behaviour of the government despite all the barriers erected over the last few decades, then you get to see the authoritarian bit.

 

[LLETSA]

I understand where he is coming from- the authoritarianism is concentrated on protecting a certain image tho. Can't really articulate this at the mo. I'm trying to say that while the irection of the state control has shifted it has not lessened. Quite the opposite.

Yes, as the state retreats from the economic realm (except to protect and uphold capitalism), it focuses instead on changing people's personal behaviour and thinking. The idea is to create a population of dumb, powerless and cowed low-wage and low-rights wage slaves, ready for our coming third-world style society. It's all coming along nicely.

 

[8ball]

They call themselves "anarcho-capitalists" or "right-libertarians". In reality they're neither anarchist or libertarian, but more usually corporatist. Odd how they see themselves as "small state" or "no state", I've always thought, considering that at least part of thir ideology is about directing capital flows toward themselves.

I think they'd mostly vehemently deny being corporatist.

Though they are certainly twats.

 

[Pickman's model]

For most people, they can't influence the behaviour of the government in any meaningful way, whereas people who can afford to hire lobbyists have plenty of influence.

If you try to find a way to influence the behaviour of the government despite all the barriers erected over the last few decades, then you get to see the authoritarian bit.

but only a minority of people try to influence govt policy and therefore what happens to them doesn't matter to the greater part of the population[/lletsa]

 

[ViolentPanda]

They are the yellow and black.

But not the blue and the green.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

but only a minority of people try to influence govt policy and therefore what happens to them doesn't matter to the greater part of the population[/lletsa]

Pretty much, but the threat of coercion is present for all and very likely influences the number of people who try.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, as the state retreats from the economic realm (except to protect and uphold capitalism),

could you give me an example of the state protecting capitalism?

 

[LLETSA]

For most people, they can't influence the behaviour of the government in any meaningful way, whereas people who can afford to hire lobbyists have plenty of influence.

If you try to find a way to influence the behaviour of the government despite all the barriers erected over the last few decades, then you get to see the authoritarian bit.

Yes-as I implied, all of this only matters to political activists who oppose (or purport to oppose) the present state of affairs. However, most people don't do this and have no interest in it whatsoever, and are therefore not really affected. And even when they are, they don't seem to give a toss.

 

[LLETSA]

a society that is endorsing pre emptive arrest is not becoming less authoritarian.

Edit: mis-read post.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think they'd mostly vehemently deny being corporatist.

Of course they deny it, and in the historical sense they'd be right, insofar as they're not bound to a state, but rather to "the market". The fact remains, however, that given our current economic mode, the majority of states too are bound to "the market", and they tend to act in mutually-beneficial ways.

Though they are certainly twats.

Massive ones.

 

[LLETSA]

could you give me an example of the state protecting capitalism?

Fuck's sake, where have you been for the last five years?

 

[DotCommunist]

I think they'd mostly vehemently deny being corporatist.

Though they are certainly twats.

aye, they confuse state with society and despising community with being anti-state

 

[LLETSA]

I think they'd mostly vehemently deny being corporatist.

Though they are certainly twats.

They don't matter any more than any other type of 'anarchist.'

Anarchism has always been an irrelevance, always will be.

 

[ViolentPanda]

so you don't have anything to support your claim that this society isn't one of growing authoritarianism.

Well of course it isn't!
It's not like we've had an increase in extra-judicial action by the police; a removal of certain rights from sections of the population; an upswing in punitive criminal justice measures; political rhetoric scapegoating minorities or anything like that, is it?

 

[peterkro]

In the broad meaning of "Corporative" as used by Mussolini they are corperative i.e. a privatised state,armed and fucking dangerous,fascism in other words.

 

[Random]

They don't matter any more than any other type of 'anarchist.'

Anarchism has always been an irrelevance, always will be.

"Libertarian" is not a big movement in the UK. In the USA it seems to be fairly influential, within the tiny number of politically active people. And in the Latin countries it mostly means an anarchist who shaves.

 

[Random]

In the broad meaning of "Corporative" as used by Mussolini they are corperative i.e. a privatised state,armed and fucking dangerous,fascism in other words.

Bit of a derail, but did Mussolini really want a privatised state? I thought a strong national police and army were at teh core of fascism.

 

[LLETSA]

Well of course it isn't!
It's not like we've had an increase in extra-judicial action by the police; a removal of certain rights from sections of the population; an upswing in punitive criminal justice measures; political rhetoric scapegoating minorities or anything like that, is it?

None of which really affects the daily lives of the average law-abiding citizen, who is free to do anything he or she wants within the limits imposed by income, family situation and education etc.

 

[cantsin]

Yes, yes-I'm quoting myself.

I suppose that this explains the way such a lot of people can see the problems afflicting society but reject the left's traditional solutions. People know that they're living in a society of growing economic inequality, but can see that it isn't one of growing authoritarianism. Neo-liberal economics and, more widely, mass consumerism has, hand-in-hand with liberal left cultural hegemony, given us a society where if you have enough money you can pretty much do what you want (this also explains why the mostly working class populations of the formerly Communist-ruled states rejected all 'third-road' type notions and plumped for the consumer capitalism they could see their western counterparts 'enjoyed.') Therefore, people simply see their main problem as not having enough personal income, a message reinforced constantly by an inescapable media babble (something else the pioneer thinkers of socialism and anarchism could never have envisaged.) That they never will have enough personal income doesn't really come into it.

Guy Debord and the Situationists envisaged it, wrote a lot about it, occasionally acted on it, and got pissed on the left bank a lot.

 

[TruXta]

None of which really affects the daily lives of the average law-abiding citizen, who is free to do anything he or she wants within the limits imposed by income, family situation and education etc.

See the problem there?

 

[LLETSA]

"Libertarian" is not a big movement in the UK. In the USA it seems to be fairly influential, within the tiny number of politically active people. And in the Latin countries it mostly means an anarchist who shaves.

"Libertarian" is not a big movement in the UK. In the USA it seems to be fairly influential, within the tiny number of politically active people. And in the Latin countries it mostly means an anarchist who shaves.

Yes, but even the Republican leadership think they're nutters. That's because they understand the vital role of the state in creating and upholding the capitalist system.

 

[LLETSA]

Guy Debord and the Situationists envisaged it, wrote a lot about it, occasionally acted on it, and got pissed on the left bank a lot.

Yes-but they were active when it was already all too late even if many people failed to notice.

 

[8ball]

"Libertarian" is not a big movement in the UK. In the USA it seems to be fairly influential, within the tiny number of politically active people. And in the Latin countries it mostly means an anarchist who shaves.

I sometimes describe myself as a libertarian.
Confuses Americans when I do it, though, and can lead to some fun conversations.

Like the Latin definition.

 

[Random]

Yes, but even the Republican leadership think they're nutters. That's because they understand the vital role of the state in creating and upholding the capitalist system.

They may think they're nutters, but they're not purging them like Kinnock did to the Millitant. They seem to be content for them to act as the whacko shock troops on the fringe. And the Tea Party seems to genuinely have intimidated some centrist Republicans.

 

[LLETSA]

See the problem there?

Yes. But most people are law-abiding, do not feel affected by the laws and measures referred to, do not generally sympathise with criminals, terrorists or political activists, and subsequently hardly notice them.

 

[LLETSA]

They may think they're nutters, but they're not purging them like Kinnock did to the Millitant. They seem to be content for them to act as the whacko shock troops on the fringe. And the Tea Party seems to genuinely have intimidated some centrist Republicans.

They do-but they will only selectively adopt their 'solutions', if at all.

 

[cantsin]

Yes-but they were active when it was already all too late even if many people failed to notice.

true

what about : marx : base and superstructure ?

 

[TruXta]

Yes. But most people are law-abiding, do not feel affected by the laws and measures referred to, do not generally sympathise with criminals, terrorists or political activists, and subsequently hardly notice them.

By that logic no laws are bad if no one complains.

 

[8ball]

Of course they deny it, and in the historical sense they'd be right, insofar as they're not bound to a state, but rather to "the market". The fact remains, however, that given our current economic mode, the majority of states too are bound to "the market", and they tend to act in mutually-beneficial ways.

Yeah, agree with all of this. The 'market' is basically a con trick, doesn't exist in any sense remotely like the right like to pretend it does.

 

[LLETSA]

true

what about : marx : base and superstructure ?

Did he envisage the current mass media-shaped society?